aetna, humana, etc. this would allow states to take a closer look at rate review. the federal government is not saying that rates have to stay under a certain amount, but they're providing money to states to ta a closer look at whether insurance rates are too high. starting this year, one thing that is important, there is something called the medical loss ratio going forward. what that means, in simple english, insurance companies are not supposed to spend more than 80% of your premium dollar on anything such as medical cost in texas. that is for the individual market. for large group markets, 85%, who have spent a bit more on health benefits. if they do not meet that, then next year, consumers will get a rebate.

host: lee is a republican in springfield, missouri. one year later, what are your thoughts about health care? caller: i am on social security disability. i just got on last year. period a two-year waiting plut to get my medice, but they want a $631 premium. there is no way i can afford it being on disability as i am. i am afraid of this health-care law, the premiums that i will have to pay, being on limited income. host: she wants to ask you a question, so holon. guest: have you been uninsured for at least six months?

caller: yes. guest: you have an option that you may want to look into. the pre-existing condition plan. it started last july. you may want to check it out. it offs insurance to people who have been uninsured for six months and have pre-existing conditions. this is something that states are ripping up through the country. the rates are better than what you would typified throughigh risk pools or private insurance. they are still not terrific, but better than previously. the government is putting $500 billion to offer that insurance. host: for people with pre- existing conditions that prohibits them from getting private insurance and temporarily put them into a high risk pool.

robert is a democrat in atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. i guess i am one of 140 million americans without health care. i have been living on my savings for several years. i would like to get health insurance. i have two questions. where do i go to find out -- can you recommend a government agency that can help me get started? and because things are changing because of the implementation of this, should i do this now or when things change? guest: let me just say, if you have been insured for six months, you might want to check into this program that i just talked about. but you have to be uninsured for six months. if you buy insurance and looking to the pre-existing plan, then you are not eligible.

host: what about that criteria, pre-existing condition? guest: if you are in a state running one of these high risk pools, then you have to have been denied by insurance companies for anything that is a chronic condition. states are a bit more flexible. me of them don't need to necessarily have gone through the entire process. let me mention a website, healthcare.gov. there is another, >> "washington journal" is available anytime c-span.org yet our video library. we'll take it to the carnegie

endowment for international peace. lisa anderson was appointed president to the american university in cairo in january. she served as university provost for two years before that. . -- live coverage, here on c- span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> one minute, and we will start.

>> all right. thank you for coming in. this is another one of our series of covering what is

happening in the region in general, but what is happening in egypt in particular. last week, there was the referendum and the start of that process toward gradual change in that country. and beyond, what we are witnessing what is happening in libya, which is seeing what is happening in tunisia, and indeed there seems to be a wave moving across the arab world that promises to be quite transformational. i am delighted to have someone that is known to all of you, i'm sure. lisa anderson was appointed president of the american university of cairo -- in cairo this year. i was supposed to attend her inauguration, but, of course, other events stood in the way.

but, even before dr. anderson went to cairo, of course, she had been a specialist on the middle east for a very, very long time. she served as the provost from 2010 -- 12 -- 2008 through 2010, and before that she was a dean at the university of columbia for 10 years. she is the author of many books. a cold the state and social transformations in tunisia and libya." she was co-editor of "the origins of arab nationalism." dr. anderson will talk to us about the events not just in egypt, but also in tunisia and libya.

we are getting very unique perspective on events in that country, as well as in the region. please join me in welcoming dr. anderson. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is a delight to be here. this is the first time i have been out of egypt since the beginning of january, so it is an interesting opportunity for me to get a different perspective than my own from tahrir square. what i thought i would do was talk of a little bit about the larger picture of how we think about the of authoritarian legacies of the regimes against which these rebellions were made. i think, in fact, the tendency to see all of this other piece

is on the one hand understandable, and also potentially a significant mistake if you are thinking about the policy approaches in the countries where we see these uprisings. i want to give a brief overview of that kind, and then i will entertain questions, including questions about what auc has been doing, of what life on the square was like during the protest, and the prospects for change in egypt. i want to set the stage, if you will, in a little bit more of an abstract or more broadway. i think it is clear that in the early days of the uprising in the beginning of this calendar year is people started to see these uprisings as all about peace. they were largely, unexpected, and spontaneous protests against

the aging and authoritarian ruler in tunisia, in egypt, and now in libya, and elsewhere as well. many of us, had for a long time, wondered how the next generation would take power in these countries, in and give a few places we have the answer -- through these popular uprisings. the contempt for their own citizens by the -- that had been contained by these governments, they had seemed indifferent toward the well-being of their own citizens. they seemed to have lost touch with the populations they were responsible for. in all of that respect, this is, as people often say, pacesetter protest about dignity, -- a set of protests about dignity, about citizens who lost their fear and wanted to demand the

respect they thought they deserved from their own governments. i think it is important to understand that that is, in many important ways, the framing of this. it is not particularly ideological. it is not particularly about socialism, nationalism, or ideologies of any kind. it is possible issue of wanting governments that are respectful of the people they serve and accountable to them. one of the things that i think was noticeable over the last decade or so in a number of countries, and this is sort of a world picture, if you will, about the decay of the relationship between government and their citizens in many of these countries, was the accumulation of garbage in the streets. i was astonished when i was last in libya, which was 2007, by the extent to which this oil-rich

country was filthy -- absolutely filthy. it was not about poverty. it was not bought how one could manage public services and so forth and so on. this was a country in which the citizens themselves, the people, were expressing contempt for the government and dissatisfaction with their situation by throwing garbage into the street. they open the acknowledged that. when you visit a country, a tactic rarely a wealthy country, and uc garbage all over the place, you cannot resist inquiry about how that came to be. the interesting thing is the government did not pick it up. it was a mutual contempt. it was a sense of "we all live in a pigpen and we do not care." it was that that ultimately animated these protests. you can see the other side when you see what happened in the

aftermath of the protests in egypt, where the place is spotless. every single young person has been cleaning and painting the bridges and sidewalks, and so forth and so on. i do not know if you have seen these pictures, but across the country there is a clean-up campaign, and it is once again sort of emblematic of being tired of living in a circumstance where it did not feel clean. whether you mean that literally or metaphorically -- there was too much current -- corruption, so on -- so forth and so on, there is a sense that part of what this was about is citizens wanting to live in a circumstance where they are respected by their governments, their rights are acknowledged, and they have responsibilities that are also acknowledged, including things like keeping things claim. simple points that other people

in societies, including the one we are in now, sort of take for granted. i wanted to pay to that world picture at the outset because i think it is important for those of us that our analysts here to keep in mind that when we say these are not particularly ideological, they are ideological in the sense that this is a generation of people who think their governments are there to serve them, who think they should be respected, who think the governments should be accountable to them, but are not swept up in ideological movements of any kind. i think there is a generational change in the region in that respect, as well as in how they organize themselves, and the importance of facebook and social media. they're parents were ideologues in ways they were not, and i think we will see that bear fruit over the course of the coming years. that said, the patterns of how

these protests developed, the kinds of things that were specific targets of protests, are actually quite different in the three countries -- tunisia, egypt, and libya. it is important to note that, as i said, because some of the policy prescriptions we will see developing in the countries themselves as well as outside will reflect these sorts of differences. in tunisia, one of the things that i think is worth remarking is that the protest started in the hinterlands. they started in our rural areas, areas that were particularly neglected by the government that was extraordinarily good at painting a picture of a successful, middle-income country that had welcomed tourism. it was a picture behind which there was quite a bit of

misery, and happiness, and as it turned out resentment against the government whose center and ruler was unconscionably corrupt. in this case, it was really, really predatory, in no way that was deeply insulting and offensive to many of the people that were actually in the hinterlands, outside what part of the country was in join any prosperity at all. there was a sense that the people around ben ali in particular had taken dishonesty to an art form. if there was very, very little discussion and debate, although we tend to think of them as being repressive parity in tunisia, despite their image as a modern country, it was actually a very, very tightly controlled -- far more than

egypt, for example. it meant that there was a facade that everyone understood to be no more than a facade of this modern, western-facing, as i say, middle-income, a developing country. the corruption in tunisia was very much organized at the top. president ben ali and his family were routinely described as to nations talk about politics and corruption has "of the family." everyone knew "in the family" got a cut of any investment in the country. there are many stories of people decided not to do business in tunisia because they could not

get through "family." there was a quality of inhibiting. it was also deeply humiliating. there was, as a result, a family at the top, and when you talk about that family, ben ali himself had seven brothers and sisters, and his wife had 10 brothers and sisters. it was a very large family, and said very heavily on this economy. -- sat very heavily on this economy. there was very little genuine sense that this was a set of policies designed to foster the prosperity of the country as a whole. it felt like it was designed to foster the prosperity of a particular family, and as i say, partly as a result of that, the revolt started in the

hinterlands, the furthest away from the family and the beneficiaries of this system, and spirals toward the center, who ultimately joined and supported by the long-repressed, but still fairly well organized labor unions. you see the movement started at the periphery and moving toward the center, both economically, geographically, politically, and in all respects. the interesting thing about the quality of corruption in tunisia, and as i say, making distinctions among different kinds of corruption might be a fine point that is unpleasant, but i think it is not not insignificant. the quality of the middle-to- low-level administration has actually retained expertise. in egypt, it was of a different

quality. the prospect for tunisia to retain and built on a relatively strong and bureaucratic apparatus are quite good, i think. today, there are, as you know, debates about a successor regime that continue a pace. there was a fair amount of uncertainty and instability in the transition. the tunisia and having gone first, where the most surprised, the least since -- yclept what kind of government would be appropriate for a transition from ben ali. the army did not support the government, but neither did it agreed to rule. what is interesting about their role of different armies is that the only army we are talking about in these three cases that actually saw genuine combat experience was the egyptian

army, and as a result they are very reluctant to get in sioux missions. they are not interested in sustaining their role -- emissions. they're not interested in sustaining their political road. i think the prospects for a loyal opposition is high. one thing characteristic of these regimes as there was never any space for the idea, much less the appearance of a loyal opposition. either you support department, or you were b train the country. what we need to see in most of these countries is the existence of a debating policy without being seen as a traitor to the country as a call. -- as a whole. in some respects, tunisia has some assets -- the strength of

the administration, the labor union, which is likely to play a role. since they face relatively straitened circumstances means they will collect information more effectively, but it more effectively, than they might if they were less constrained in financial terms. we can return to those propositions later, if you want. egypt, then, saw the next of the really significant uprisings. as you all now, these were very urban parity in contrast to the tunisian case, -- urban. in contrast to the tunisian case, if they're not only in tyro. there were significant of rises -- in cairo. there were significant uprises

in alexandria. the outcome of applause -- of the constitutional amendments to -- the only people that voted no or very urban. the people who were prepared to be politically active and prepared to challenge the military were almost entirely what you would call the intelligentsia in the urban areas. were you also saw in addition to the fact that it was urban was an extremely highly-disciplined protest movement. there remains a reluctance on the people better organized these movements into the surface as their leaders. in that respect, it is a principal position that there are a part of the people, not

leaders, so they do not want to surfaced at this juncture. i think what is really important about this is that that serves them well as protest organizers. it does not necessarily serve them well after the protests have succeeded. i think it is fair to say that the people that organized the protest, as they got going in the beginning of january, and as they organized the january 25 police day protests, they did not expect to prevail. they have organized protests in the past that had fizzled out. they learned lessons in that. if they learned about civil disobedience, non-violent protests, and so forth, but they did not expect they would be confronted with success in the way they had. if they were good that they're protesting, and are now flying them -- finding themselves ill equipped and not prepared for actually managing their

political position in the new egypt. that said, they were prepared for the opportunity when it presented itself, and very well- not worked, and very sophisticated. as we debate this. was it was 800,000 people? was it 1 million people. quite a lot of people to tahrir square for quite a long time in a context where they were sufficiently well organized. they were not provoked by those trying to make it violent. we can talk more about what happened in tahrir square, but it was a very sophisticated capacity to rally the troops, keep them there, keep them engaged, and keep them peaceful, and, hence, you saw almost a festival atmosphere developed over the course of time, and some of that was a deliberate effort to ensure that it was peaceful, and that it was possible to sustain it for what turned out to be several weeks.

the authoritarianism that these protests redials was not the kind of product tory regime that we saw in tunisia, but actually -- predatory regime that we saw in tunisia, but actually born more of neglect. over the course of time, the regime just got out of touch, if stop thinking about a lot of the kinds of things that ordinary people care about, so that over the course of time, things in egypt, whether it is education, where basic social services, or salaries, or anything, are formally, very, very cheap. formal wages are very low for the police, for example. but, everybody supplements their salary with something that

could be described as corrupt. so, the small-scaled bribes to the police. the private lessons the teachers give. everybody had a second job and a second source of income. so, things in egypt are kind of vix -- expensive. it is hard to get the social services that you get as a matter of right. there is no such thing as free education, even though education is free, because you have to pay for the private lessons. there is a kind of pervasive, small-scaled corruption, that is born of a failure to keep pace with inflation and wage rates for teachers or police. the civil servants in egypt are all under-paid and all have some

other source of income. one of the real challenges for egypt is not so much removing a predatory family, although there are acquisitions -- accusations against the mubarak family, but their real challenge is to reform a 6 million-person public bureaucracy so that people are paid enough that they do not need to supplement that, then they stopped supplemented it. that will be very complicated. it is not probably impossible, but it is a very different challenge them that challenge the tunisia and reformers will be facing. i think the factors of neglect in egypt will be harder to reverse than removing the predatory family. as i say, the debate on the future, to the extent that it is organized around safe and

clean neighborhoods, it is in many respects very appealing, and there is an enormous amounts of enthusiasm and mobilization about taking responsibility. so, as i say, people are cleaning up their neighborhoods -- neighborhoods that have not been claimed by anyone because the government nor local residents were doing it. when the police disappeared, these neighborhood watches appeared of local citizens taking responsibility for their own security. that impulse, saying that we are a citizen of this neighborhood, not only this country, that change in the way the egyptians are seeing their interactions with each other and the public authority.

i think it is quite remarkable and does bode well over a long run for a transition that does capture a sense and reinforce a sense of responsibility on many parts of the citizens. i think it is important that the military steps in and handles the transition. i think a lot of a lot of votes yes for the constitutional amendments were not for the constitutional amendments, but there were for the military timeline that they get out quickly one of the things that is interesting in context like this, and this is true one of the left voted for fox in mexico -- i do not necessarily agree, but i want the consequences. a lot of people were voting because they could vote, and they did not know what the outcome was cloudy, and also

because if they voted yes, it was a way of not insulted the military, in insuring that they would leave promptly, as they had promised to do. we can talk more about the prospects for the transition if you want. there is ample reason why i am very optimistic about the prospects of a choppy, complicated, not easy, but nonetheless, ultimately successful transition in egypt. libya, by contrast, i could not be more pessimistic about. the ragtag rebels that appeared and animated by the fear are completely uncoordinated, as you can tell now. even internally, much less with other rebels in other parts of the country.

there has been for decades virtually no free information available in libya about what is going on in libya, much less the rest of the world. so, most of what libyans know about each other in is not reliable, and incomplete. there is very little capacity to coordinate care the discipline and organization you saw among the egyptians is not something you see among the libyans because for the last 30 years, the regime in libya has deliberately and relatively successfully presented the growth of bureaucracy, a professional middle class is, nation wide networks of economic ties, political organizations, anything. what you see now, and you hear these reports of the time about tribes and tribalism in libya all the time -- this is a

renewed tribalism. one of the few reliable sources of solace and support in a context like libya was family. tribal sides had begun to attenuate 50 years ago or 60 years ago to become less important as people have less -- professional identities and so forth. people resorted to family because the only way you can get access to the social services in needed, or education, or other kinds of permission's was actually through those kinds of connections. what is interesting about what you would call corrupting in libya is there has to be something public turned to private sources. in this instance, there is no public. it is, at this point, gaddafi, his resolution, his ideological

supporters, and his family, and so that is all. it is hard to argue that the way people have behaved, and the way they have relied on their own families for access to the daily needs that we all have constitutes corruption, when there was no alternative to that at all. all of this means in my estimation that the post-gadhafi reconstruction will be far more about face formation than democratic transition. i think we are starting behind 0 in terms of the construction of a nationwide state administrations that would be recognized by all libyans as having legitimacy, and i think that will be a real challenge. regionalthere are unbor

stances. it is no surprise the protests started in the east, but it is also true of you have seen a fairly opportunistic tribes moving toward the rebels, and when the rebels fortunes look bad, they moved toward the government. there is a lot of opportunism because there is no ideological commitment at this time, except opposition to gadhafi among the people that think they can get away with it. that is really the question now. well that opposition be able to get away with being an opposition? one of the things that gaddafi has said, and i think that he is in most respects a man of his word, is that he will die of a martyr to the revolution. on mike ben ali, who was exiled from tunisia, but survived, or mubarak, who was not required to leave the country, but went off

to his home, gaddafi is going to be, if, in fact, the rebels prevailed, will be killed, and his body will be dragged through the streets so people will know he is really dead. there is that quality to the attention. nobody is going to give up this fight because they know if they surrender they will be killed, so they might as well die in battle. nobody on any side believes there is any merit or value or prospects in surrender. so, it will be a bloodbath in many ways, and that remains the challenge for many who looked in from the outside, saying this is, in part, at least, a case of the year -- new united nations doctor of the responsibility to protect civilians and so forth, -- doctrine of the

responsibility to protect civilians and so forth. this is not simply an issue of civilians, but also what could be described as a civil war. if you put your thumb on the scale in trying to protect civilians, you are actually taking sides in a war. that might be fine, it certainly was part of the calculations for the arab league. they knew what they were doing. gaddafi as one of the most unpopular people in the arab world. there was no love lost there, but those are the kind of cancellations that the international community are going to have to live with as this resolves itself, however it does. there are very different kinds of non--democratic settings, and therefore very different kinds of protests against those nondemocratic regimes, and it behooves us to disaggregate one

from the other, and start to think about what the aspects of the various apology regimes may be. -- various policy regimes may be. we have two cases where we could have reasonable cause for optimism. i am particularly optimistic about egypt. if i was living in a tunisia, i would be optimistic about tunisia, too. it will be hard in egypt, but i think as a good shot at being a much more open, dynamic society and that has been in recent years. one of the things, and i will stop here and entertain your observations -- that i do think we need to be concerned about is the cost that libya may represents to tunisia and egypt, and it would be very much too bad if those countries, preoccupied as they should be,

where sorting out their internal issues, and being asked to be, much less actually doing anything in libya, because you can see the temptation for the rest of the world. their neighbors. they care. on the other hand, they're very, very busy, and if they succeed in any way to develop something that approximates democracy, it would be so hugely valuable to their region as a whole, that it is worth being abstemious about asking them to do anything in or for libya. on that note, i could stop, and we can talk about tahrir square, if you would like. thank you. >> thank you, dr. anderson. [applause] >> i am going to use my privilege as the moderator and as the first question if i can. is there any emerging trend that we can see in egypt, on a new

system -- egypt on a new system? are egyptians the connecticut parliamentary system, a presidential system, where is it too premature to talk about such terms? also, all work on the muslim brotherhood in egypt. >> one of the interesting aspects in egypt is that people did not expect to be in this position. if you had best and egypt said on the january 22 whether two months later they would have to be thinking about whether a presidential system would be better than a parliamentary system, they would say let's just get through the protest. in that respect, this is a moment where egypt since across the country are absolutely starved for information. they love thinking about this. they do not know anything about parliamentary systems or presidential systems. these are not in the days that had taken place in the country. so we are at a point where people want to know what the

choices are, and there is enormous activity. today, we are running public program about how to reform the constitution, what the amendments may be, how parties may organize in different ways depending on your a the tort system -- and your elect oral system. all of this is all new. nobody has much of a conviction about what kind of system might serve them best. they're trying to figure out what systems there are, and then given what systems there are, what interest they have, and whether those interests would be better served by system a, system in b, where some hybrid system, or something like that. the two groups that are believed to be the most well organized are the remnants of the old ruling party, and no one knows what will happen to that --

whether it will be reconstituted and reorganize in something like a non--economists -- and non- communist, communist party. would be alive, were taken apart in the tunisian decision to just completely end the life of the ruling party. that does not seem to be on the horizon in egypt at this point. it clearly does have the strongest network, grassroots, so forth. that is on the docket. for all of the people that were protesters, of course, they do not have party organizations. they are not great enthusiast for the political parties who had been the formal opposition parties, and they are trying to figure out whether they for a party, and if they form a single party, what is about, and if

there are little parties, what is the cost? that might be why they won a parliamentary system. parliamentary systems are better for a lot of different parties. all of that is completely open and completely up for grabs. people are staying up all my is trying to figure it out. i remind my egyptian colleagues all the time of oscar wilde's trap -- the problem with socialism is that it takes too many evenings. [laughter] >> i think what is interesting about the brotherhood is that they are said to be the most organized and so forth. i think it is pretty obvious that there are, i would not even say ideological cleavages within the brotherhood, so much as i would say significant, generational cleavages within the brotherhood that are not simply about "ok, the older

brothers have past their prime, and it is my turn, i am now 55." it is about what the role of the brotherhood should be. it becomes an intra-brotherhood debate about politics, the brotherhood, and the aspirations of the brotherhood. it is easy to say there are coherent, but if you looked inside, they are not so coherent, not so well-organized. as a patronage network, they are fairly well organized. if you were doing competing patronage networks that have been no real purpose in life, then i think you have these two groups and they're very strong. the muslim brotherhood really does not know who should be the head. there is alive of the bridge. even when we think of as the

best -- there's a lot of debate. what we think about as the best organized, they were not prepared for this either. the government was characterized as being cranky. now, presented with these opportunities, they are not poised either. it is a very interesting moments, where nobody was ready for this, and everybody is scrambling to figure brought how to best take advantage of opportunities they never expected to have. it is a be careful what you wish for a moment in egypt for everyone. >> ok. let's take a group of questions at a time in the interest of time. you could just a tool you are. -- if you could just stay to you are, and to you represent. >> i made a documentary filmmaker. with respect to -- i am a documentary filmmaker. with respect to egypt, and

they're searching for alternatives, amendments to the constitution's seem to be somewhat premature. the constitution would follow this decision, so is there any kind of discussion toward a constituent assembly where they would then form a constitution based on what system they want? >> ok. yes, please. >> thank you. i'm from the brookings institution. i am always very interested in your opinion on what the perceptions of the u.s. in egypt currently are, and whether there should be debate on how the u.s. might help in these very delicate, politically transitional phases, especially to the point you're making about the choice of political systems. thank you. >> in the back. yes, please.

over here? any? microphone here. >> thank you for joining us. the youth movements in egypt have been largely described as the power of the use. is there something about this that challenges cultural norms of respect for the elderly and the community? also, have these events inspired scholarship on the region in the arab world? >> i will go backwards on this. those are interesting questions. first of all, on scholarships, i think most of the scholars were not prepared for this either. i think everyone is trying to get their other books finished before the start to think about this, and a lot of the other books for about the persistence of authoritarianism, so in my

best to forget about that all together. [laughter] >> it is interesting. nobody was prepared. the cultural norms, and the use, i think this is a very interesting dynamic. one of the things that i do not think people appreciate here is the extent to which the parents of egypt are proud of their children. his astonishing -- it is astonishing. this is not seen in this country as something that was a revolution against the parents. it was a revolution on behalf of the family, if you will. everybody i know when down to tahrir square to see their kids -- everybody. there really is a sense that the only thing parents will say is we are a little guilt-ridden because we would not do it, and we have to ask them to do it.

but, they are hugely proud, and, as i said, the funny thing about education in egypt is there is no free education. so, everybody, the most poor, the most rich, everybody pays for it. in a sense, this is the redemption of that. that investment has paid off. it is not paid off in the sense that these kids have the jobs for which they were educated, because as you of the mismatch between skills and jobs and so forth and so on was still what it was on the 24th of january, but the sense that the kids did lose their fear, and did represent a "we are going to take control again of our is something all of egypt is proud of. in that sense, you should not -- it does not seem you should be

respectful of the bureaucracy. that might resurface. "kids today" -- this is the generation that fought their parents how to program the vcr. this is the generation that is taught their parents things for decades, and the parents are used to it. both the kids are used to it and the parents are used to it. the sense that i, as a parent, and no things, and you're supposed to listen to me, that dynamic has changed around the world. you are even seen it in a context in which there was much more deference to the father of the family then there is the case in the united states, and you still see that dynamic. this is something that this generation is going to be different all the way through. it is not just that they are the

use balch, and a lot of testosterone at that age. bulge , and a lot of testosterone at that age. you hear the story of migration. in a sense, this entire generation has translated for their parents. it is a very interesting dynamic, and i think in all of these places, this is part of the reason why it is happening, and part of the reason why we are going to have -- it will be interesting to see how it develops, that relationship between authority and age is just different. i have to say when of the most becoming things about this is the extent to which parents just think their kids are the cat's whiskers. it is adorable.

and the united states, was adorable. the united strategic less adorable. the united states has been seen as being behind all the time, not having caught on to what was happening, in part because what was going on was a little different. in fairness, you would not necessarily want to extrapolate from one to the next automatically, but there are other reasons why from the perspective of the region the american policy statements just did not seem like they were very agile, quick, informed, knowledgeable. that might not be fair, but that is what it looks like from the region. in terms of what kinds of things the united states could be doing now, there is, as i say, particularly in tunisia and egypt -- and i think this is

happening, so credit where it is due -- this hunger for information about where -- how politics works is quite genuine. there are ways to address that and answer that, which is send in people who know things like that. get those debates going. one of the things we have been doing at the american university in cairo is and what happened in latin america? what happened in chile? what happened in eastern europe? how did that work? and they do not think there like that, but there are the best practices, or learn lessons, or mistakes and not to make. the more of that debate, --

particularly it is not american political scientists coming in and saying you have a parliamentary system here. it is a people think about who knew the difference -- who knew the difference between poland and albania. there is an enormous appetite for that. with some respect, that is the trouble with evenings, because they are ready sell doc was talking to each other about what we're going to do, and then you have seminars that are bringing in people from hungry, so it is very busy and hectic. there are ways that people have thought about these issues. they may or may not apply here, but it is worthwhile knowing about them. that is already proving to be productive. in some respects, that democracy-promotion work that has been done in the past, done properly, and particularly by

bringing in latterly people who have had that experience, people are hungry, and interested, and invigorated by that. that will be useful. obviously, that will not be adequate in libya, but it would be very helpful and constructive in tunisia and egypt, for example. on the question of the constitutional amendments, there was a lot of discussion about whether we should have a constituent assembly and that's sort of stuff. everyone i knew was reading the federalist papers for about one week and half. this is a deeply-engage -- for a political scientist, everybody in egypt as a political scientist right now. it is very gratifying, although i am sure people will fall off after a while. it gets tiresome for those of a state do it all the time. -- those of us that do it all

the time. part of the way the military framed this was that after the president was elected, so you have the constitutional amendments that permit relatively modest changes, but do open the system for candidates that would have not been permitted under the existing constitution -- then you have those elections. you have a new parliament, because the parliament was universally understood to have been produced by rigged election is in the fall. you need a new parliament, a new president, a new presidential election. at that point, the military withdraws. then, if you want to talk about the constitution again, go ahead. he was framed that way. nobody has said that the constitution with these amendments is necessarily the permanent constitution. it was just modest reforms to permit getting to the next six months or so.

so, there might be a revisiting of all of that. there are very apropos models of all of that -- why discussions of why the american constitution is only six pages long. do you want a constitution that outlines all of the rights, or says if it is not mentioned here, it is a right? i would not be surprised if those things come up -- come up again. >> jessica? >> jessica matthews with the carnegie endowment. thank you for a wonderful talk. for all we have heard, and all we read, we still learned so much. listening to your description of libya, it was hard on two different grounds for me to imagine a happy outcome of the intervention. either on the grounds of the fight to the death on both sides

expectations,, or on the grounds of one can libyans manage themselves and the western forces leave. is that a fair set of conclusions to draw from what you said, or can you see a more happy future? thank you. >> david? >> >> middle east institute. ahead aou think i ha year? to say we had the political transition relatively smoothly -- they had elections, they formed a government. what would be the top of the agenda of public debate in egypt at that point? would it be governance issues, corruption, bread and butter

issues, jobs, high prices? or will it be foreign policy issues, which usually comes down to being palestine? >> thank you. washington institute. i wanted to ask about the military and egypt, and its views about its own a longer term or medium turnerm interest. some people have argued, including a lot of the tahrir square revolutionaries, that by handing over power as quickly as it was too, the remnants of the ndp and muslim brotherhood will be the ones that the military will end up working with and be most comfortable working with, because they have a head start. do you see the military role and egypt as one of hanging onto its economic privileges, opposing

worker rights, opposing serious economic reform, and so on? in other words, something that would be not that different from what we see up until now, despite the revolution? >> one more question. we have another round, but one more question this side. >> middle east institute. i would like to encourage you to go back and think big. 10 years ago, you wrote an article called "arab democracy -- dismal prospects." i dug it out and ask my students to look pettit and ask what has changed since. -- look at it ask what's changed since. can you take on the broader question? >> all right, but this time i would add -- i will go back.

the intervention in libya -- i do think the international community, not just the united states, was in a difficult position, because as the tide turned against the rebels, you increasingly confronted the possibility that they would actually be defeated by the gaddafi regime. that would of been hugely demoralizing across the region. it was palpable in egypt, not that the egyptians particularly care about libya, or about the prospects of the protests in libya, but they didn't want protests to be destroyed like that. they just didn't. there really was a sense that the protest movements in the region, and, in a sort of

strange bedfellows way, the governments that make up the arab league, all wanted to take this opportunity to say no, we don't want gaddafi to prevail. we just don't. perhaps for different reasons, partly because people were in the is that a protest might succeed in libya -- were enthused that a protest might succeed in libya, and some because they were just sick and tired of gaddafi, as everybody is. the international community was confronted by a choice of saying we're not intervening, and the prospect that gaddafi would have prevailed was quite high, or we are, knowing that that is going to get us into a really difficult set of dilemmas about how we get out and what happens. since gaddafi himself knows and has known for a long time that this was as likely an end to his regime as any other, he will be

literally personally hard to find, and people will not finish until they find him. it could go on for a long time, and that kind of a stalemate, so forth and so on -- nobody wants to have anybody -- anything there. they are willing to drop bombs, as we've seen, but nothing more. i don't think there was any choice. honestly, i don't think that the prospect that gaddafi would be able to destroy the rebellion and all of its supporters, which would have been a massacre, was probable. -- was palpable. people just couldn't do that. we may also have a situation that is also unpalatable. i think it is a significant problem. i had hoped, speaking of things that i had written before, that

we would have been able to intervene with something more of a kind of what we hope will happen later than we did. i understand we are all busy, but to talk a little bit about who we think will be responsible for assisting olympians when did they start their reconstruct -- when they libyans start reconstruction would have been becoming. we the united nations, we the united states, we anybody -- that there was a sense that we were going to return responsibility to libyans, whoever they are, and provide some kind of assistance to them as they gather around a table and people who have literally not talked face-to-face in years. that is what it will be, people from tripoli and people from benghazi who have not talked to each other for years and years and years, people from inside and outside who have not talked

to each other for years and years and years. somebody will have to be a facilitator, frankly. if we had been able to talk a little bit more about how we imagine that happening, it would have permitted us to say from the beginning in good faith that we did not intend this to be anything but an effort to ensure at gaddafi did not win. unfortunately, white now it is not clear what -- right now it is not clear what it is. i think there was a legitimate rationale for what we did when we did it, but that will get lost because we didn't really describe what we anticipated to happen afterwards. egypt in a year. egypt in a year will be about economic issues. at that point, there will be some kind of call lessons of the political landscape.

it will be a left and a right, ndp makeover, the brotherhood. there will be a political landscape, and both parties will be advocating policies which will mostly be about domestic economic issues. i think everybody anticipates substantial inflation. we know that the stock exchange is a complete mess at this point. tourism has disappeared entirely, it so you have a huge sector with millions of employees, people were employed, as opposed to unemployed. there is a lot to worry about the domestic economic front. itat will play a little b into the military, which i will get to in a minute. i don't think foreign policy will be the issue, unless we are somebody decides to make the issue. this wasn't about foreign- policy. it is still not about foreign- policy.

it really is about accountable government, fairness, and a lot of the labor protest going on around egypt now or as much -- they are partly about money, but they are partly about dignity. you, employer, and not paying a living wage. which is probably true. it is as much about a right to a living wage as it is to certain number of towns. -- pounds. there will be a lot of debate about what should be the minimum wage, how to accommodate the fact of what you do with all you're unemployed, what will the minister be doing, welfare, so on. keep in mind that the current minister of finance is a labor economist, and that should tell you something already about the kind of priorities that the military has. they are not interested in washington consensus economic reform. they are not. one of the problems of egypt, in

my estimation, is if you look at the people who have been charged with corruption -- some of the former ministers and so forth -- some of them are corrupt, but some of the more advocates of economic privatization. not personally corrupt it all. taking a policy position which is now unpopular. it got caught up that this is somehow all corrupt, that big business is corrupt, and that it is impossible to be a big businessman without being corrupt, and that it is impossible to be a minister that was supporting business without being corrupt. that needs to get pulled apart, and we need to take people who were actually corrupt, of whom there were some, and disaggregate it that. but i think it is an early signal of the kind of policies the the military are likely to be advocating insofar as they advocate for a successor regime. it is going to be about economic

policy, but it is going to be much more statist, middle mubarak era set of policies, much more about equity than growth. that serves the military purposes. i mean, they are big owners of state enterprise and so forth and so on. why should they be interested in privatization? they are not. going beyond that a little bit, i think that the military wants to be behind the curtain. they want what they were before. that worked very well. they don't really care as long as there is an implicit deal that they can stay behind the curtain and what they were before. they don't care who the government is, as long as those parotid kids are not challenged -- as long as those

prerogatives are not challenged. the vast majority of people are perfectly content with that. those in tahrir square realize that the embrace of the military was all they had no. let us debate everything else, there is plenty to debate. sometime in the future, the issue of military pre rogatives may come up, but not now. obviously, there are a few intellectuals will push this, but by and large, people will be content with that. free expression, issues of labor rights, wages, lots of other stuff to discuss i need it before you start saying that the military has a big chunk of the economy -- lots of other stuff to discuss in egypt before you start saying that the military as a big chunk of the economy.

if they get it, they're pretty liberal. >> my question about what has changed? >> oh, i skipped it, didn't i? a freudian slip if ever there was one. [laughter] i think it is partially the maturation of this generation. aboutwe were thinking these regimes getting along in the tooth, and we were thinking it 10 or 20 years ago. a very long and attitudes right now -- very long in the tooth now. we were speculating about the next generation, and that was when gamal mubarak, all these

people, and that ben ali did not have a son who would serve the same purpose. they did not seem to be any other way to what happened. the only way you could get to the next generation was through this quasi-monarchical way, which nobody found a satisfying. what is interesting is that across all of these three countries, and i would argue across the region as a whole, there is the lost generation of the parents. they are going to have to can see in a sense -- to conced in a sense. this gets to come -- this gets too, is it my turn, or the kids will do it for us? that generation between 82 and 32 is just stocuck.

they did not figure out how to do it themselves, and it probably, in a surprising way, going to have to concede to their kids. >> something like prince charles. >> yes, like prince charles. exactly. [laughter] >> i live in washington, d.c. i am an egyptian american. one of the things i am giving to my kids and grandchildren -- the future. i am so delighted with what they have done. i have a question about possible hijacking. we are not there yet, we're not done. a lot of groups have been mentioned. is it possible that we will get drifted from true democracy, the hijacking? the other question -- as an

egyptian american, what can we do to help? thank you. >> couple of questions. first of all, why the latest referenda -- why was the board participation solo? i believe it was mid-forties. second, secretary of state clinton was there last week, and one of the youth movements rejected meeting with her. was a reflection of a deeper sentiment among egyptian youth, a deep grudge against the u.s. for the last three or five decades, or was it just temporary? the last question -- you talk

about american models and other models. whether turkey could be a model -- a muslim majority country, democracy -- was the topic. would you please touch on that, if it was a realist approach from any kind of -- thank you. >> i'm with the american- kurdish information network. in 2003, the document was discovered in the headquarters of saddam hussein's baghdad that 13 kurdish women were sent to egyptian brothels. the presparents of these women appealed to susan mubarak and at

the appeals went to death years -- deaf ears. >> an arab league. -- arab league. thank you, lisa, for sharing with us. in your capacity at american university in cairo, and people telling us that the revolution was young people -- do you see anti-american sentiment in the streets? what do you think the role of american university in the upcoming two or three years regarding change and egypt? >> i will start with the last one and give you my inaugural address. no. [laughter] first, i do not think, despite the fact that the youth group did not meet with secretary clinton and so forth and so on, i do not see a lot of anti-

american sentiment. intra-egyptian. it is about relationships between governments and citizens. over the course of time, as policy positions begin to congeal into a bed, just as with economic policy, you will see -- congeal a little bit,, just as with economic policy, he will see it with foreign policy. in any of these countries, that is not what the principal question is. i will brag a minute about auc, butuse i am paid to com, because i would any way. i think we've played a hugely important role in promoting citizenship, which is what animates these kinds of movements. without saying that other kinds

of education are not important, i think the idea of a liberal arts education that acreage is critical thinking and people to ask questions -- that encourages a critical the king and people ask questions and to creates betteri citizens. many of the leaders of the movement, the wise man who negotiated with the government and so forth and so on -- i think there is enormous opportunity for us to continue playing that kind of role in a new egypt. i think it is actually going to be easier to do that and it had been in the past. it will be amplified through free expression and so forth in a way it was not before. from my vantage point, the kinds of values that auc represents

should be even more deeply appreciated and embedded in society. as you can tell, i am very optimistic. one small gesture with made to this end in the short run -- auc is covered by a protocol was signed in the early 1970's between the egyptian government and american government, and one of the provisions is that auc has a position at the university called university counselor who is a liaison to the government. the kasler has, among other things, -- the counselor has, among other scenes, watched the search for a new president. he is on public service leave as a minister croute higher education. we hope that the experience of seeing from the inside the works of a genuinely not-for-profit,

private institution, and so forth, will have some utility to him as he thinks about all of the national universities in an uproar because students want all the deans removed because there were all appointed by mubarak. it probably will not be to constitute a board of trustees and have them run a search for a president, which is why aat auc did, but something different than having simply the president named these people is likely to come out that. we will contribute to the capacity to think of different ways of doing things. from political science, we can bring an expert on parliamentary systems and presidential systems into the way we operate, the way we run our own affairs. might be useful examples to

consider as we go forward. i think auc represents an opportunity, a resource, for egypt now even more than it did in the past, and i hope we fulfill those expectations. the kurdish women question -- obviously, i do not know the answer about that particular case. i had not heard about it before. but the larger issue of transparency is an interesting one. because there is a hint of a much more transparent government even in this transition period that there had been before. but for all intents and purposes, all the files of the interior ministry had been burned. there have been fires in the interior ministry and local state security offices all over the country. the reason we know about the interior ministry is that it is a block and a half away from our downtown campus.

we are constantly having to reroute our buses because of a fires at the interior ministry. the upshot is that there has clearly been an effort from a number of parties to destroy evidence. some of the tahrir protesters put out some of those fires and tried to get evidence and so forth. it is not even clear altogether who has been lighting fires, because there are disaffected police who have been fired and went back in and started some of the fires, and there are probably security people in the employ of the interior ministry who are destroying evidence. that is what many of the protesters think. in any event, this is part of one of those transition questions, the extent to which you have capacity for documenting a truth-and- reconciliation, so forth and so on.

part of the point is that burning all that evidence is making it harder to do that. it may be that going forward, you have a much more transparent, bureaucratic, ordinary administrative apparatus. but it is not clear that that kind of administrative apparatus would be able to recoup the past. the question of the past, who should be brought to justice, is in fact a very complicated, murky one. as i say, that particular case may have been lost in the fires, others like it may have been lost in the fires. but we will never now. -- never know. there was some recuperation of some of this material, and some of that had been shredded, and we were facetiously talking about as happened in the aftermath of the iranian revolution, there were unemployed students who can

piece together all the shredded material. that may happen in some circumstances, but the stock that is burned is burned. so i don't know what will happen. turkey as a model is something you hear a lot in the united states. you don't hear it so much in egypt because i don't think they want to have any single model. this is going to be an egyptian project. they want to take a little bit from chile, from turkey, so forth and so on, and construct something that is egyptian. it may borrow disproportionately from one country or another, but people will start to say, what happened in indonesia, what happened in other places? being a muslim majority would clearly a matter, and that is why people are asking about indonesia, but it is point, there is no sense that this country shows us our future. that is delivered on the part of

the people who are trying to -- a sort of deliberate on the part of the people who are trying to sort out what kinds of policies to advocate. the question about the youth and mrs. clinton -- i did not put a lot of import on that. mrs. clinton's visit was not particularly well organized, so figuring out before and who would be able to meet her -- figuring out before and it would be able to meet her did not happen. they opened themselves up to being his respected, if you will, but i don't think there's anything to -- deeper bein -- opened themselves up to being disrespected, if you will, but i don't think there's anything deeper to that. parliamentary elections -- it was very high.

all these people saying, "i have in 40 years, i've never voted before" -- most of the people who voted actually wanted to vote. the interesting thing is, and they all said that one of the things that was fun about voting is that they did not know how it was going to come out. i think everybody believes that the turnout was pretty high and that it was a satisfying experience for those who enjoyed it. as far as what egyptian americans can do now, i think there is a very important egyptian and diaspora -- egyptian diaspora, particularly in the united states, but elsewhere as well. and this is a time when it is a

valuable to people in egypt to see that we connection, to see people making investments. back in the investment of time. it does not have to be -- investment of money -- that can be investment of time. it does not have to be investment of money at this juncture, although to be a little bit facetious, i am at a value investor, and employ are there -- and boy, are there values in egypt right now. give me five or 10 years, i could be a millionaire. it is true in general, this is such a good time to make investments. the time of expertise, commitment, moral support, whatever kind of resources you have. this is a great moment to say this whole community of what is 8 million to be

egyptians living overseas, to have that be part of the conversations and networks and so on -- people in egypt love that. they love and to know that people are paying attention and are caring and so forth. whatever resources there are, they would be welcome in egypt at this juncture. >> at that very upbeat note, i think we would all agree we had a very engaging and cycle presentation -- and insightful presentation. [applause]

>> 30 years ago this month, president ronald reagan and his press secretary, jim brady, were shot outside the washington hilton. tonight at the newseum, you will hear from the man who pushed reagan into the limousine, as well as the author of a new book about the attempted assassination of ronald reagan. it is moderated by judy woodruff of "pbs newshour."

>> committee hearings are now being gathered and archived in one place, the c-span a video library. read our blog and watch what you want, when you want. >> beginning april 1 and throughout the month, we will feature the winners of this year's c-span st. studentcam competition. the videos focused on an issue or topic that helped to better artist and the role of the federal government -- better understand the role of the federal government. stream the videos any time on line at studentcam.org. >> now conversation with abc " world news" anchor diane sawyer on a whim and -- on women in the journalism industry. it is hosted by marvin kalb.

from the national press club in washington, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> this is "the kalb report" with martin kalb. [applause] >> our subject tonight, diane sawyer, a life in neighs. years ago, our bright young woman -- a life in news. years ago, a bright young woman, a graduate of wellesley college, walked into the cbs newsroom. everybody understood that someone special had just entered, someone likely to be on the fast track, as she has been. abc news has kindly provided us with a brief promotional film about diane's career.

let's take a look. >> for more than three decades, diane sawyer has been one of the most respected and passionate journalists on television, known for hard-hitting investigative reports and exclusive interviews with board leaders and newsmakers from wall street to hollywood. as anchor of good morning america, abc news magazines, and "world news," she has shown there is nothing in news she cannot do. >> would you like to see this document? it is this a joke? >> in 1968, the literature graduate decided to take a turn as it weather girl in her hometown of louisville, kentucky. she learned to shoot, herself a lawyer reporting.

-- shoot cameras herself and learn reporting. she worked in the nixon white house. in 1984, she made history by becoming the first woman on the formidable newsmagazine "60 minutes." >> those stories and andy rooney tonight on "60 minutes." >> in 1989 she joined abc news and greeted "-- and created "prime-time live" with sam donaldson. through the years, she has led award winning investigations into racism, fraud, care of the vulnerable, report on camden, new jersey, winning her awards. >> no money can be found.

>> i'm never going to get it. >> i'm diane sawyer from louisville, kentucky, the new kid on the block. >> in 1999, she took on a new role, rising at dawn with charlie gibson on "good morning america at." two years later, she watched and reported on september 11. >> this is not another story, even for those who have been doing it for so long. >> in december 2009, after 11 years, she was done with "good morning america" and became anchor of "world news." >> so good to be with you tonight. >> as always, she has her bags packed for the big story. >> every place tha'tt's brown is

impacted/ ? >> she has won every award, but most of all, she has earned the respect of her peers, who know that if you want a tough question for a dictator -- >> have you ever personally killed someone who oppose you? >> or maybe just a sense of wonder for the news of the day, they can turn on the television and adiane will be there every night. [applause] >> diane, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the "kalb report,"especially as we open this conference of the women's media foundation. many in the audience are eager to hear about your career and

your take on that news business, which remains indispensable to the functioning of a free society. you are clearly at the top of your career, you anchor "world news," etc. [laughter] i know that first and foremost, you consider yourself a journalist, but you are also an anchor, and in the will of television, being an anchor is something very special. describe for us what is so special about being an anchor. >> first of all, i have to say it is very special just to be sitting here with you, and i want to say something -- you have to hear this. [laughter] when you remember -- if you remember when i first walked into cbs news, i tende -- all i remember is getting to cover the state department with marvin kalb. secretaries of state were calling you, and i could not get a phone call returned from an

answering machine from the weekend a desk. for me, this is -- [laughter] for me, this is a true binnacle, the kind of dream to be back home. ok, now -- [laughter] hijacking your interview, is that what you are worried about? being an anchor, in my view, to possibleas much as feet 360-degree radar, the driving the questions that have to take you through the broadcast. it is such a gift to be able to throw to incredible correspondence, like jim sciutto, sitting here, moving through iran in such

danger, and those who report with such incredible bravery. it just seems to me that to be an anchor is to be a witness to the world in its varying questions, in the way it presents itself in terms of priorities during the day. it's to get a chance to make decisions that you hope at home "iy'll look up and say, didn't know that," which don hewitt of "60 minutes" taught us was the most important question. this week's me up to the world world.s me up to tehe i see the job of an anchor is to say, how do we make up?

>> what do you -- how do we wake up? >> what do you see as your own responsibilities? what are you looking for? >> i am persistent. i have strong opinions. i think the job in a way is to have opinions that can excite a conversation. i don't make all decisions. we are very much, as you know, a collegial operation. john is the executive producer. we are group of people sitting around a room every day talking to correspondents in the field. i only think that my job is sometimes to try to be as fearless as i can be in saying, "let's do this, let's try this." heaven knows i'm old, and on what have i got to lose?

let's do something phyllis today. >> -- fearless today. >> has a general or president called you and said, "don't do story x"? has that ever happened to you? >> that has never happened to me. i know it has happened in the capacity of "world news," and charlie has told me about the dilemma. for everyone, the careful decision is weighed heavily with our dual responsibility to not put lives at risk and at the same time, stay true to our contract with the american people, that we tell you what we now. >> according to the pew research center, more americans under the age of 30 get their news from the internet, not from television news. how do you as and anchor adjust to this new reality?

what is it that you do? how do you play the game? >> we are on twitter at "world news." i am not on twitter, but i am on facebook. i think it is the most exciting thing during the day to see all the different ways -- all the different conversations going on at once. at the same time we're getting ready to put a piece on the air -- i interviewed secretary clinton today -- at the same time we're doing that, we take a picture and the picture is going out. i think it is a great opportunity to take people behind-the-scenes -- i cannot tell you how often we hear from facebook, or something coming in to the "world news" tweets, a question -- "of course that is

what everybody wants to know." the giant cacophony, the giant democracy, the giant college that is the country can sometimes right through to you -- giant chorus that is the country and sometimes reach right to you at the right time. >> do you still see it as a competition with cbs and nbc? >> it is still you. i will go to the state department and get them to return my call. i do not see it as a competition. what we do uniquely, that is the form of ideas. you have to be out there creating a unique and important conversation, answering questions in a unique and important way, so that you also want to come to us. >> i do notice that you do carry

on a conversation with the audience, as opposed to the old days, when we were broadcasting. is that delivered under part? that -- on your part? >> that is just me. i don't have one of those voices. >> oh, yes you do. >> when charlie was doing the headlines of the show, "tonight i cannot-" do that. part of that is just the physiology of the vocal cords. >> how to you as and anchor, and this is the same for katie couric or brian williams at nbc -- how do you persuade at so many people of jordan in the new

world of communication and -- so many people on board in their new world of communication and information, not to see you as a relic of the past -- [laughter] >> a relic of the past? >> no, i mean the program, not you. >> there was a gesture my way. i saw that, emerging from my archaeological dig. [laughter] i think i breaking some of the conventions and the formulas -- buy breaking some of the conventions of the formulas, we are still in the moment when at the news is breaking, and you come to broadcast television, and we are as immediate and alive as how the story feels and tastes and smells. when you are there with us, we don't have to make an argument. >> that's a good point, that's a good point.

you have recently come back from a trip to japan. we are now here in washington talking as we tape this. but you were there to cover another extraordinary story overseas, and you have done a lot of that. what i am trying to understand is, in a way, why did you make that trip? if you answer "because it was a great story," is not enough. why did you make the trip? you have so many responsibilities that come into a decision. why, for example, did you make the trip to japan? >> i wish i could say is a science and a theory. it is not. a lot of it is i feel impelled to go. it is not just that i cover that tsunami in indonesia and east asia, but i felt that that was the story that i had to experience tangibly, and to see.

as we said, this incredible constellation of the disasters. i felt at the time, at that moment, too, that there was a reason for the entire broadcast to be there, and part of being an anchor, as you know, is a decision about where are you best there anchoring. is and it -- isn't it don hewitt who coined this term, "anchor"? anchor of a relay race. when are you the center of an excess of people, and when is that best -- axis of people, and when is it best to take the whole broadcast? in the middle east, christiane

amanpour was there, a whole host of correspondence were there, and it was fantastic. and i was there as the story moved from trichet to egypt. -- tunisia to egypt. >> tell me about the cuts that are taking place at networks. in abc, in 2010, there was a 25% cut in staff. did people have to be cut from "world news"? >> yes, everyone -- >> how many people are on the staff? >> kathy, where are you? i am thinking close from 80 to 100. >> people had to be cut from that number? >> we did have to cut from that number. it was anguishing for

everybody there, at every part of the network. >> did the program itself lose money in its annual budget? >> i don't know. i don't do budgets. i never have. i've never done that, i never asked how much it costs to go to japan. i don't want to now. -- don't want to know. [laughter] is not my problem. you have to talk me out of it. >> but do the cuts in staff -- at a certain point in the day, you hope to get joe to go there and mary to go there, but you may not have them anymore because they are cut -- does it affect the quality of what it is you are getting to the american people? >> i think that sometimes, initially, for sure it has and does affect our exhaustion and our attention and our feeling,

"oh, joe and harry did this -- and mary did this. how do we do this in any way?" but it is in no way to say that it was not a true heartbreak for every colleague who left. our responsibility is to look at what we're doing and to say, are we deploying our resources on what we really believe the future to be, and to sharpen and hone those within it? i always look back -- i can't believe this -- one of the first stories i did was in africa, and i was way in the middle of the night in the desert on some story. we were going out and exploring lots of archaeological digs, again.

i looked up, and we have a crane that has been flown in, and the crane is swooping in over the trees in the middle -- it never occurred to anyone to say, the right expenditure of money for a network, or should we be concentrating on the correspondents, concentrating on the stories we want to bring you, as opposed to that one shot? i still remember them standing there. they have those beautiful and expensive the faces, and they are going -- [laughter] so i think some of it has forced us to rededicate to the things that we now are at the heart of what we believe we should be doing. >> ok, at this particular point, there is a lot of -- an eruption of stories all over the world. in this year 2011, we have seen

and the first three months of the year probably more than that the entire year. do you feel that the american people are really interested in foreign news? foreign news that does not include american casualties and american troops? what is happening in indonesia? by the american people aboard in the world? -- are the american people absorbed in the world? >> i believe the american people are absorbed in anything new that will make them feel smarter and part of a community. i will believe it until the last countdown of the last broadcast. i know is true. i know it is true! >> do yourself -- do you

yourself, as anchor of "world show --vide the on a normal day, do you divide it, foreign, national? >> no, there is no explicit or implicit quota of any kind. it is only the context of what we're telling you, our we "world news"? i remember someone saying to me when i was out with richard memoirsorking on thihis -- remember, this is not the book. this is a book. this is a broadcast, and we will be back tomorrow. >> you don't look after the budget. do you look after the ratings?

>> i know you won't believe this. [laughter] sail into me occasionally when i see tvnewser,, or when someone looks very glum, but i don't check them myself. i tell the executive producer to check them someplace else. i would rather not. i get as excited as anyone when i know something that we cared about connected with an audience. i love that. but i simply don't be hostage to that. >> -- simply don't want to be hostage to that. >> what about abc, the corporation itself? >> i assume they do. [laughter] >> they don't talk to you about it? >> only in the most general

terms. >> at the end of the year, "diane, if we had only done this --" >> no. \ i honestly can say to you -- this is "candide," but i don't know of a single time in my career when i could not cover the story i wanted, or broadcast a was on could not cover the story because of money. never have heard it. never have heard, "we cannot afford to cover that story." >> but you remember 30 years ago, as you said before -- you could do these kinds of things without anybody questioning it because the budget was so much larger, and there were fewer people watching after you on monday. there are many more people today watching after you wanon

money. >> well, i am not insulated, because there are broadcast decisions all around me. all i am saying is i believe that if we go to the management and we say, "we need to cover this story," we get to cover that story. i think that, again, there are decisions probably made that don't always come to me, but you can bring them to make. again, if we feel that this is central to what we do it we can it.""let's do look at how we covered the middle east. cost was never asked. it was never a question and never doubted that that is what we would do. >> did you feel, when christiane

amanpour was in egypt, "i want to go there"? >> i wanted to go there, but she is christiane amanpour. i interviewed mubarak, but she has more than i have. >> she is extraordinary. let's take a quick break so that i can remind our viewing and listening audiences that this is "the kalb report" and i'm talking with diane sawyer of abc's "world news." women. do you feel that women in the business have a fully arrived, and they don't any longer feel they after by the ceilings? and -- have to break ceiling? they have arrived? >> they have arrived in many ways in many venues.

by and large, the business part of what we do is not as accelerated as the on-airport of what we do -- on you can see who is doing what's on television. you can make your decision on the air. there is a feeling that it is still sometimes a bit of a struggle.

heaven knows around this globe, there is an inconceivable mountain that we'll have to climb together. looking at a duty woodruff and thinking about those days, i wonder how many women there were out on those convention floors. not so many of us were there. i do believe that every broadcast on it abc news has a female anchor now. i do think that is an achievement and it makes a big difference. i had to do a conference once at sun valley. i called jack welch and i said, tell me what you have learned about putting rocket fuel behind women in the workplace. what do you know about it? you have a direct correlation to the success of the company. it is a business piece of evidence that you've got. he said, numbers. it is not about to having women, but it is about having some number of women. if you get women in a room and

you have a certain number, it is a different news room. he said, that is what we have to concentrate on. it is that number that actually controls the gps of a great organization. >> if you look at the number of women you are now covering some any of the war zones, my sense is that there are more women out there than men covering the news. i do not know if that is right. i am sure the foundation could provide the numbers on this. that is my impression. there has to be extraordinary progress in one area. >> i do not think there is any

hesitation anymore. >> when you were first at cbs and you were the first female reporter at "60 minutes," what was it like? >> i had no idea what i was walking into. mike wallace. i knew i was in trouble when an entire group of us walk down the hall ended ended in the men's room. it must be very useful to know what they're going to do. all i can say is that i had a certain obliviousness because i think -- not because it was a female, but new kids always got a bit of initiation.

>> when you went over to abc, was a much better? >> it was different because i had walked in as the first on- air correspondent there. it was a lot of learning. it was hilarious and wonderful, too. i would like to think that it was like just going into a circuit training course. when i got to abc, i was a co- anchor with sam donaldson. it was understood that we were there and we were starting to gather and it was nail biting. it was a disaster at the beginning. we were actually a "saturday night live" skit. >> you were not that bad. >> we were pretty bad.

we had to figure it out as we went along. >> you are not that bad. >> then why did you call me and tell me how to fix it? [laughter] [applause] >> i want to ask you about social media. we have seen and discussed a lot of that and it has played a rather major role in the coverage of some of these stories in the middle east. you have used footage provided by people you do not know pointing in this direction when something even more important might have been happening behind the person holding the camera. how do you feel about using that kind of material on your show when you really do not know the origin of a lot of the stuff? >> we always tell you where we

got it. that we got it through youtube. >> that does not mean -- >> i understand that. but are viewers do know the different frames of pedigree that you have. we do also call and do our very best to verify everything that we're putting on the air. >> it is a question when you get into something so fast- moving and to pick up footage because you do not have your own people. the tendency on television is to show something. if you have something, it seems to me that the temptation sometimes would be to use it,

even without that extra check. >> we really do try to be as judicious as the time when we are looking at something that is not a lot of people singing on ""american idol." we try to be as careful as we time because we have seen it and we have seen it in situations where we never want to change the story based on something we do not know as much about as the time. >> it is interesting. i do not know -- talking about the power of this new means of communication. in terms of fashioning the new political outcome or attempting to. that new communications

revolution has had more to do with the changes in the middle east than anything else. from your vantage point, do you share that feeling? >> it is impossible not to see and be stunned by the immediate pilot light of hope that goes on when people are hearing from people who are connected to them. when those first signal starts coming out and somebody is responding and you know there is a voice in there and that voice is hearing you, it is impossible not to believe. it is a holding a force in the world. mark zuckerberg said, this will be a giant force for democracy.

you can call me all you want and you can hammer me all you want for believing that we have to go big, bold, and abroad rather than being driven by such privacy constraints, by driven by such considerations of privacy, he would take his chance on friending the world. he believes it. absolutely believe that this would happen. >> in this whole new world of communication, there is fox news. [laughter] i was wondering what you thought of fox news. [laughter]

>> i watch fox news. i watch cnn, too. i am going to be in rehab some day. i think you can learn so much from the excitement of the people on fox news about what they are telling you. and about what they are bringing to every story. i think the american people are enormously smart and they are enormously, collectively so discerning about making their own judgments that they move from -- and i do not think ideas can be labeled with the people who hold the money spectrum.

people can make their mind up about ideas. i do think that the people who hear something are surrounded by a lot of information. and can check it in a lot of ways. i am not going to -- i am a universal watcher and i learn. >> it is a noble sentiment. [laughter] >> do you not watch? >> i watch it all the time. i'm just kidding. what i am getting at is opinion in the world of news and you have a stunningly -- >> do you think people know they are getting opinion in the world of news? >> i think they know.

i think people like to be challenged. just as you like to be challenged by someone at the dinner table, you like to say, i disagree with you. that is also how we learn, too. >> there is no question about that. i am talking about the world of news. where you were raised and where you have then -- has been set for a long time. people might like to believe that then this is where you get information, not opinion. we are now in a world where there is so much more opinion than straight, hard news.

no matter how gloriously intelligent every person is, it may be difficult on occasion to distinguish one from the other. i am listening to you say, the american people make that distinction. >> i believe they do. i do not know about news. we know that we have to bring the fact that we seek out every day the same degree of passion and enthusiasm. you do not know this, but i cannot wait to tell you this. i know how pollyanna this might sound to you, but i feel the way for us to strengthen how much we believe in the fact that will anchor your opinion and keep introducing those.

we are not -- we are not subsumed by opinions and we are not -- >> i hope you are right. what are your sources of information? >> i do not know where to begin. i read much about six papers each morning. i watched "good morning, america." i do not have to give up at 3:45 in the morning anymore, which i did for 11 years. i get into the office and we stand the e-mail that are coming in. there are fantastic. i wish we could introduce you'd sometime to the debates that go

on at abc news between -- that alone is worth stopping everything you are doing. i read "the daily beast." i stay all day long, i can see a complete quilts of screens and i can see what is going on. >> do you have a favorite website? a place where you feel you must check in every day? >> i checked in with each of them. before i go to bed at night, i checked into those three. >> do you eat during the course of the day? [laughter] >> copiously.

>> let me ask you a couple of questions. the wikileaks story, if you or bill keller and you had the chance to get thousands of interesting, fascinating, top- secret cables from the u.s. government, what would you do? would you do what keller did? >> each of us has our own star we steer by. we reported on them. we did put them on the air. if they had come to us, i would like to think we would have done what bill did. but we would of been deliberate about it. he most trusts sad

revolutionaries and you have to sometimes live in the contradictions in these moments in journalism. if you are reluctant to do anything that my even inadvertently compromise a life because you do not know who was being exposed, that is sure beginning. i assume they did everything they could predict then you just have to make your individual decision about how much time you have and what the proportion is. there was a lot of it that was -- you and i know this. i am sure he assumed no one had

read his cable. i think that what we learn from them and we would have broadcast from them would have been what we thought illuminated the world. it because it was news and after due diligence, he felt that however embarrassing invited into the u.s. government, it was news and he wanted to run with it.

he did it and he is not sorry. do you buy into that? >> thank you except his reasoning? perhaps. i do. >> does that mean that almost anything after due diligence is publishable or broadcastable. >> no, and we do not know where the no is. we did make decisions. we make decisions that they are not to broadcastable by our guidelines. i think we have to watch out for universal's. we are in the business of looking at the constellation of the question presented to us every time. if i thought there were universal standards, i am not sure i would know how to behave as a reporter.

we do make judgments about what encourages copycat criminal behavior. we make those judgments. >> it is not only universal values, but there are national interests that are involved. i am wondering whether you think an anchor also has a responsibility to the national interest of the country. does that run through your mind also? >> yes, of course. of course. >> to the point of saying that because of that, i am not going to run those cables? they were put out basically to embarrass the united states and

i do not want to participate. >> would you have run the pentagon papers? >> different story. >> would you have done it? >> absolutely. >> because? >> pentagon papers was released to the public by one person angry at one war that he thought was unjust. is julian assange a journalist? he has said that he is there to embarrass. is he like diane sawyer with all the privileges of a journalist? >> does someone have to be certified journalist before you will except the information? >> no. wait a minute. i am interviewing you. [laughter] wait a minute. let's go to another subject. [laughter]

in the 1970's, you worked for president nixon, you were both in the white house and you followed him not to california. those were extraordinary times. you had a great scene on history as a was unfolding right in front of you. please help me understand your continuing loyalty to a president who had embarrassed the country, had lied to the american people, gave birth to the watergate scandal -- help me out. >> it wasn't about that. in a funny way, it was how i lived up what my father had always taught me. if you walk away from someone at the worst time, that is also

a choice that has implications for you are and to you want to be. i had been there to go to china with your brother. i had been there through all the times, the end of the signing of the treaty of the vietnam war. i'd been there for those times. there were a handful of us who were asked to go. i was asked to go for a very specific reason, which was mysteriously, i had read so many things for the first round. one of the lawyer said, you can tell us if what we are saying is not true based on what the reporting has been.

that kind of traffic light on what we are saying are not saying. for me to say no in that moment, it was for me to assume that i had, i guess, some personal sanctimony that i do not have. i do believe that people can redeem themselves. i saw what was done. i saw it. i saw it on the inside. we all know what a ghastly bruise that was. i was one person out of five in the worst moment for them. i just wouldn't have known. >> i understand. obviously, there was another answer.

>> i could have said no. i did think i was going out for a few months. i did not know what was going to happen in each stage. the choices that were made that were made. there were people resigned, they wrote books, letters, i will never do that. i just won't. >> president nixon had an enemies list. i know it because i was on hand. [laughter] for example, would you have known about an enemies list at the time? >> no. >> how difficult for it you to make the journey from political partisanship to objective journalism? you've done that quite well. >> even though my father was into republican politics in kentucky, not many people were.

believe it or not, i did not go to the white house as a partisan. i went because i had been a weather girl and a very bad weather girl and my father died and i was with my mother for a here at home. she asked me if i would go and do something else because she felt that i was staying there for her. i began to look at other things. truly, i thought the white house would be interesting. i interviewed with the news division at the same time and was rejected. i ended up at the white house because i thought it would be interesting. to me, it was not one president

or the other. it was to learn what the crucible could possibly be like. >> if you have one more interview to do, who would be with? >> well, i think the pope. >> i would have liked the other pope. >> john. this pope would be very interesting, too. we have written letters. i suspect that i won't. i am not at the top of his list. >> what is your sense of the future of american journalism? >> i think every one of these students in this room is going to go out and change the world.

>> really? [applause] >> i think we do not begin to know the enormous power of of passion delivered and all of these different online and off. what we say here on the air is going to make a difference and help those women who are dying in afghanistan. if we simply believe we can do it. i think we have not yet experienced what it is to stand

arm and arm as journalists on facts that we know can be the leader in which you can move the globe. >> diane, we are out of time. i am very unhappy to the knowledge that. let me thank our wonderful audience, including the international women's media foundation. [applause] the many people all over the country and the world who watched the kalb report. for those is still cherish the role of a free press in stimulating a free society and finally my thanks to diane sawyer. bless you. thank you so much. [applause] i am marvin kalb. good night, and good luck.

>> we will have 15 minutes of questioning. your opportunity to ask diane questions. you know what that means, of course. you ask the question, you do not make a speech. if you go on too long, i will be impolite. please give us your name and any organizational association that he may have. >> i am sarah snyder.

i am a sophomore. what is the most fun part of your job? what is the most difficult part of your job? >> the most fun is getting to wrestle a story together. that is how you know you are intellectually alive. the hardest part is hair and makeup. if i could do radio, i would be doing radio. when they come at you, at 4:00 in the morning comment it was misery. i have never liked the growing part of television. -- grooming part of television. people are paying you to be curious. you have to tell me more about that. what is greater career bliss

then that every day? >> thank you very much. >> i am a freshman at george washington. you've had such a great career. was there any definitive moment for opportunity that you had that got your career jump started? >> looking at this, my first story was three mile island. when i got to cbs. i had been there a few months and i've been so paralyzed with fear because of all the people that were there, the great history. the first thing they gave me to do was a radio story to write. susan came into me and said, ok, i threw up a lot my first year.

she helps me. this is really true, i am speeding in my car to three mile island. i think, the reactor is going to blow up. wait a minute. roger is not going. they think i am expendable. i covered the story, knee knocking, and a cover the story with a lot of nuclear information to i'm part. then i would submit it was the 3 billion could get ahold of. i got a hold of every single name of of anyone -- and the woods get the name of everybody

i could get ahold of. i got a hold of every single name of anyone who had worked there. >> i am a student at george washington university and a part-time reporter. my question is impart about the nixon administration. earlier in your career, you were involved in republican politics, helping nixon write his memoirs. how was wondering what will you have in politics aside from reporting? -- i was wondering what role you have in politics aside from reporting? what involvement do you have? >> one of my proudest things is that my husband -- he will tell you if you want to call them at

home -- he does not know my politics. has no idea. [applause] by the way, i meant what i said to you earlier. i did not come as a partisan. i love it, but i love it as someone who loves hearing all sides all the time. >> ok. yes, please. >> i am a freshman at gw as well. what advice you have for young people, especially women, looking to break into the realm of media? >> good. >> i am a big believer that you can still go to small market and learn a whole lot about becoming a reporter, the truth about becoming a reporter. i sent my godson to weigh teeny weeny -- to a teeny weeny little market someplace in

nebraska. he wrote me a note and he said, "you told me how to handle everything except how to handle the sheep gnawing through my microphone." [laughter] that was way out in nebraska when he started. i love local coverage and i love what you learn in local coverage. i also think that the more you can actually believe in your heart, it is not about technique in the year. -- in the air. if they are not curious and have the stamina to and to that question, not pose it to them. who something else. >> thank you so much for coming this evening. i am a senior at the george washington university. there was a point where you started anchoring world news tonight when you're also

working on anchor in good morning america. i wondered how you managed to do both at the same time. >> really grouchily. [laughter] after 11 years at good morning america, it was sometimes a physical achievement just to make it out in the morning. it was six different wake up calls. i'm just bone tired. sometimes i think i cannot make it through a day, an interview -- some of you have seen me as recently as today. i think, canada. and, by george, when i get their hands -- i think, i cannot do it. and, by george, when i get there, it is just better than a beach wilts shock. i had just come up from south

dakota. we stayed up all night, came back, went to japan, stayed up all night every night, came back, and it was libya. and then came into work in the weekend on libya if he did not like the material, i do not know what you would do. >> ask for a raise. [laughter] >> i am a freshman at george washington university. in the beginning of your career, being such a pioneer for women in the industry, did you ever anticipate the amount of success to have acquired thus far? >> you are very kind. i never thought in those terms at all. no, i did not know where it was going. i was just doing what i was doing at the time in a modicum of panic.

he pulled levens said, are you sure you want to do this because i do not think -- he pulled me in and said, are you sure you want to do this because i do not think you will go very far? [laughter] i remember looking at him and thinking that is ok. >> i like doing the postal negotiations, too. i never saw a career. i just saw what i got to do that day, that year. >> good for you. yes, please. >> i am a gw alum. when marvin asked where you get your information, you only mentioned u.s. or american- based media. is that to say that you do not obtain information from foreign-based media outlets?

>> i do, but i tend to do that through our overseas bureaus who report in every moment -- in every morning what is in the local newspapers, what they have been seeing on television, with the stories are. they are really good. >> we have about four minutes left. i noticed that least 15 questioners. what i will arbitrarily decided now is -- let me hear some of the questions from you, like the first three people in a row. ask your questions. >> i have heard a lot of stories of reporters who have reported at 9/11 or at hurricane katrina who had a difficult time during their job because of all the human suffering they were witnessing. have you had those moments in your career and what were they? >> hang on.

yes, please. >> to many of us here tonight, especially to students, you are our role model. your someone i highly admire. when you were our age or a college student, who was someone you admire and found influential? >> third. >> i am an international student from taiwan. i would like to know, when you are an aged 25, what was the special codification that the white house wanted to hire you from a weather girl? [laughter] [applause] i really want to know. you are my role model. >> see if you can do all three in one minute. >> i will try to do all three. the woman i admire the most -- i have a mother and an aunt who are as interested as exist on the face of the earth. -- as intrepid as it exists on

the face of the earth. at the white house, i do not know with your thinking. i was a bad weather girl. i did not have my glasses and i cannot even see the west coast. go look it up. [laughter] and the other one was in school, thinking about what you do? what was the third one? a friend of mine said the other day that i still have a photographic memory, but not same-day service. [laughter] >> covering tragedies. >> thank you very much, you young would for snapper. [laughter] -- you young whippersnapper. [laughter] yes, it practically takes you down.

it pulverizes you. if you believe that your job is to make of the people feel something and maybe respond, then you just pick yourself up and go do it. but, sure. >> 3 in a row. we will go in here because we have not heard from many delegates yet. they have questions. >> please. >> i am from palestine. i am not students. i have a question. as a woman, over all those years, have you had moments when you felt discriminated against as a woman? >> good. >> thank you. >> another delicate question. >> i am from -- will you be interested to be in this country when -- people are kidnapped and -- would you be

interested in covering the people of the larouche -- in belarus. journalists are jail there. seven presidential candidates from democratic forces are arrested. 56 people are facing 15 years in jail. we still have kgb. would you would beat -- would you be interested in going there and doing your reportage? >> let's get those two questions answered first. >> yes, it would. i did a story once in what we call it "have a nice day, racism." we were sitting outside of saddam hussein's palace. we always wanted to see if we could capture on camera the ultra high-frequency racism. and we did this story. i believe it is still being shown in some places, at some universities. i always felt that there were

reflexes that i encountered that were not dim discrimination as such, but invaded reflexes and you have to sometimes fear -- but imbedded reflexes and you have to sometimes fear around them, come back three times, come back four times, and prove yourself in other ways. but i know that it is there in in demint ways -- in endemic ways and we have to make sure that we go out and be those hands that i was talking about, those hands that go out and say we know what you're experiencing. look, we're here and we are here a billion strong to be on your side. >> ok. yes, the third person. >> i am a student from the george washington university.

over the years, you have encountered and reported on so much devastation, how do you remain so strong and persistent when reporting such heart wrenching stories? >> again, i think they are the people who needed to the most. that is why we do it. they are the ones counting on us the most. how can we possibly say it is too tough for me? i cannot say that. >> right. >> two or three in a row. >> i am a journalism student at ithaca college. i am interning year. i think that what a lot of journalism students are worried about this year, with some as downsizing, it seems that the -- with so much downsizing, it seems that only way to break into the journalism in a

straight and make it a career is to be unpaid for a very long time. [laughter] i am wondering how you suggest us to break into the industry and get our foot in the door and make it a career rather than something we are lucky to be paid to do. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am the president of hope for .ometomorrow thank you so much. i have admired you throughout your career. as a woman, as an anchor, how you look at women in africa compared to men as journalists and u.s. and anchor? how can you work with them locally in africa as a nature? thank you. >> one more question. we only have a minute left of time.

>> i am a 17-year-old from east los angeles, california. you mentioned that student journalists are inheriting a new media that can change the world. what would be your advice for someone like you -- for someone like me who is from a community that is full of gang violence? >> ok, go for it. [laughter] >> first of all, to the journalist and women in africa, we salute you. also, when we travel, we depend so much and often on the women journalists to be there with us, helping a spit, -- helping us, being a rise. i do think there is -- helping us, being our eyes. i do think there's so much

general uncertainty out there. if you possibly can, sometimes, tried to even spend those two weeks or a month doing something -- even if they cannot pay you -- because i know too many people in those two weeks and that month who got the job. it is simply someone getting to see simply what you can do and that you're willing to come in and do anything. i know that there is that uncertainty. but i also know that a lot of the people we see at abc news have had a door opened that way, too. with the gang violence, for another time. i am getting a rawrap. >> i am sorry that we do not have enough time. to all the women reporters and

executives all of the world who are here tonight, god bless you and continue to do the work that you are doing. [applause] thank you all very much. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us to mucto night.

>> president obama and the first family are making their way back to washington and should be back later this afternoon from the latin american trip. the president categorically ruled out a lead-based invasion of libya. he told univision that an invasion is absolutely at of the question. he also says that the u.s., this week, will pull back from its dominant role in the international effort to keep gaddafi from attacking civilians. it was 30 years ago next week, march 30, 1981, following a speech to the afl-cio, president reagan was shot outside of the hotel.

tonight, the newseum will host jerry par who pushed president reagan into the waiting limousine and the doctor who operated on the present at georgia washington university hospital. it will be moderated by judy woodruff. >> tonight, on c-span 2, we will hear from chicago's longest serving mayor richard daley in one of his last speech before he leaves office in may. he talks about the state of chicago and the country and reflects on his legacy and the tells the transition to his successor, former white house chief of staff rahman manual. >> we started wondering about the japanese. the japanese will take us over. we defeated them in the second world war. they will honor country.

that is it. we are all out of jobs. then we start to one of the mexicans. we lose all the manufacturing to mexico. look at what is taking place. we cannot do this. we can do this. now we're whining about the chinese and the indians. we are a country of whiners. that is what we are. we should have enough confidence that we can compete with people if we all sacrifice a little bit for the common good. >> watch this event from wheaton college in illinois tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> earlier today, the century foundation released a report for the prospects of peace in afghanistan. the war there is called a stalemate. they also talked about a recommended reconciliation. >> this front seat is empty.

>> thank you all for joining us today. i am steve clemens. we're here to release this important report, negotiating peace. if all of you had time this morning to see an op-ed in the new york times entitled "selling the afghan war," thomas pickering makes his case on what could be the next steps in thinking through a complex set of challenges in afghanistan. this morning, we are streaming this live on in no. blogs and websites around the world right now. a one to read all those folks. i want to say special hello to c-span, which is also covering this morning, and to folks with

voice of america. we have the task force staff director for this about to come up and say a few words, jeffrey e.riaurent we have ambassador thomas pickering, who served as the task force co-chair and former united states undersecretary for political affairs. he served as ambassador to six different countries. they get tired of appointing him to so many places. we have a lot tartini -- we have brahimi. and finally, james dobbins, director of the security defense

policy center at rand. thank you very much. i am glad you could join us today. let me invite just to the stage. >> thank you so much. thank you all for coming. two years ago, as the new obama administration confronted the imminent collapse of the neglected project to reconstruct and secure afghanistan, washington's thinktank beehive was above with excitement about counterinsurgency as the elixir to cure a deterioration situation -- you're a deteriorating situation. -- to cure a deteriorating situation. major troop reinforcements could gain ground, but this has been for 30 years a war with lots of

foreign hands and maybe too many intelligence services. the and the game would not be shocked and off, but after a regional and global politics. financial support from the carnegie corporation, the rockefeller brothers fund, and active collaboration with the german foundation, we embark on a project to look at afghanistan in its regional and led byateral dimensions lend i tax force composed by a distinguished people in these areas. majority international, minority america. we were particularly fortunate to recruit two peerless corp. cochairs. he was the wizard of bonn.

from late 2001 to late 2004, he was the u.n. special representative in afghanistan. he was one of the few people walking the streets in this city today who has engaged directly with moolah more. thomas pickering is undoubtedly america's most accomplished in a blacdiplomat. he made it into an exceptional series of addressing problems for america on the world stage, culminating fortuitously in this project as investor to the united nations, ambassador to india, ambassador to russia, all places relevant to finding solutions to the afghan problem. and he was undersecretary for political affairs at precisely the time that the taliban

emirate was faithfully careening into numbers with al qaeda. spells out's preface t the inputs of this task force. fresh analysis and sometimes brilliant background papers that are listed at the back of the report. i would also call your attention to one recently published on women in afghanistan from the perspective of somebody who was under cover trying to maintain women's schools in her country. with background meetings in a dozen capitals, including me with afghans on all sides, from

senior officials in the kabul government to the political opposition within that political system to civil society to, yes, persons intimately linked to the insurgency. we, at century, provided the support, writing what would be told to was from the wisdom of the task force members. it >> thank you very much. i begin by a say in the report's findings with the perspective of the members of our unanimous. we were free of footnotes,

disclaimers, and that this stage, any serious differences. quite remarkable and unusual. quite encouraging. many of the people who were concerned have had long and -- long experience in afghanistan and have had the opportunity to join us in meetings around the world to -- world. my job is a simple one. every man or every woman's guide to the report to give you a sense of what we addressed and how we see it. we were essentially -- there were essentially three major questions that form the backbone of the structure of the report. is it appropriate to have a negotiation? what to negotiate about? how to get there? in each of these, we come

forward with what we think are considered analysis and very carefully phrased and focused recommendations. to begin with the first one, it was not immediately sure that we began. we think it does. we think it does for a number of reasons. we detect with the help of many on both sides, including their own military leaders, a sense of the military still might. progress may be being made, at different ways of dealing with the problem, but we do not see any goals in sight. we see no crossing of the goal line. people are getting tired. the financial costs are increasing. our friends and allies are going home. we see some wariness among the

taliban. we see around the region, including key players, a feeling approaching a political settlement from their perspective makes sense. all of these have encouraged us to believe that a political process needs to be included. i read a simple sense that all wars and with political implications. if you do not try to shape them, you undertake to accept what you get. from my perspective, this is important. we believe very much that an exploration has to take place and i will come to that when i give you the answer from the task force for the third question. the second question is, the difficult one. it is very clearly the central focus of a negotiation will be among afghans about the future

governance of their country. it will have to involve afghans from the four parties that jeff so succinctly set out for you. civil society, including those groups that have emerged over the last two or three years. for the taliban, a significant number of indicated to us directly and indirectly their sense that the negotiating process has for them. -- an important role to play in the future of the country from their own somewhat narrow perspective. it is also an poured to recognize that there are many other issues that have to be addressed in the course of governance and beyond.

central to that, of course, are forms of governance. it is a parliamentary system of any value? how do appointments take place? what is the structure of the future of the government regionally and centrally? islam is now enshrined in the constitution, is that adequate? many other issues, justice and accountability -- accountability. and so on. the international community has its own thoughts about the negotiations. the disappearance of foreign forces, for example. there are other questions that will need to be addressed. the question of how to get their was particularly interesting and taxing for us.

there are many ways to go. we decided that we would try to not only illustrate, but , the international community, those civil pay attention to this report, that we thought there was one approach to this that made more sense than any others. it was an approach built around the process of facilitation, the appointment of a facilitator, a person or group could fulfil this role. we thought that the u.n. blessing would be helpful for this particular kind of a process. but the primary role of the facilitator would be to talk with all of the parties and explored extensively with them to questions. -- two questions.

was there but i really a consensus building in favor of negotiations? on the basis of developing of those questions, what did they want and how they believe they can get it as a result of the negotiations? those questions are critical. at the end of the exploration, we thought the facility -- facilitation mechanism should consider next steps. we dain to suggest that from our perspective, an appropriate next step was to create something we like to call a standing international conference. a group that will bring together the key players. it will have two important roles to play it will be the center for an internet-afghan negotiations, which take precedence -- which should take precedence to help decide those critical questions that relate

to afghanistan itself. iran then -- around them should be clustered several circles of players. the united states and pakistan before all the reasons that you know. countries like iran and india, the central asian neighbors of afghanistan, and beyond, but also closely related, china and russia. japan, the european union, turkey is an interesting possibility given its important role in the region and its current involvement in afghanistan. we are not prescriptive with respect to that. the role will be initially it to work closely with a facilitator to help cement ties and bring

forward the kind of agreements that are absolutely necessary to see the interest-afghan part of the process. the central be -- the second role will be negotiate to understand how and what way the international community will both support what it is that the afghans can agree, support what the afghans would like with respect to their future status in the region and the world, making commitments themselves on critical questions regarding the future of afghanistan. wherever required t, security ad and assistance to help against any resurgence of al qaeda.

a whole series of issues having to do with the international gold at afghanistan -- peacekeeping. that needs to be monitored and verification of the agreement. the central parts of the process of working things out. all of this, in fact, is illustrative of the fact that to from our perspective, a military surgeon and an economic surge needs to be complemented by a diplomatic searched -- surge to take advantage of the process that has been made. we are encouraged that we present this today at the right time. not only among the aficionado's huddled behind desks in dark

rooms in academia, there is this idea that has struck a chord of interest. up to and including the highest officials in many countries around the world. many of whom we consulted with in advance. we are not persuaded that presenting surprises get to anywhere. presenting a consensus is much more effective and that is what we have tried to achieve. it is my great pleasure to ask lakhdar brahimi, phil has been there and done that numerous times, to share his personal wisdom about this issue and to share with the of the many great contributions he made to the production of our report.

>> you said everything, tom. i do not know what you want me to add. perhaps just emphasize the point that thomas made at the end of this presentation. although we were 15 people, not representing anybody but ourselves, coming from various countries, but we were from the beginning clearing -- clear in our mind that our work is not an academic work. it is something that would be useful to the people who are concerned with issues of foreign -- of war and peace. therefore, as we worked a long to try to prepare the ideas in

the reports, in doing that, we needed to speak to as many people as possible to avoid surprising them. not only here in washington, but the united nations, new york, the government and others in afghanistan, and elsewhere, too. many of us went to pakistan and talk to not only the government, the military, but also to members of parliament and civil society, former ambassadors who we have known in the past and are still talking to their

government, india, we did the same thing. we did talk to the government of iran and others from iran, a couple of academics, here and elsewhere. we made sure that people knew a little bit what kind of ideas we started with. we listen to their views and worked out this report. we think there is not much new in the report, but there is a new way of putting out this idea and organizing them to see how we are going to move from the situation to piece at long

last in afghanistan. i would like to add a few taut -- a few things. why this idea of negotiating a settlement that hopefully will be accepted and supported by everybody in afghanistan. and also accepted by the neighbors of afghanistan? tom has mentioned my personal experience. my personal experience in afghanistan had to incarnations. the first time i was with the united nations to try to put an end to the civil war in

afghanistan. when the taliban were slowly taking over most of the country. by the 11th of september, they controlled 95% of the country. we tried to see if we could make -- if we could help the other factions come to an agreement with one another. and we failed. we felt completely. -- we failed completely. i resigned in 1999. the 11th of september came and the conflict -- the taliban had practically taken over the country. we were telling -- you see, ok, you control the territory.

but you're not going to have peace unless the other parties accept the kind of dispensation that is going to be in kabul and elsewhere in afghanistan. they thought they took control of the country, [inaudible] the second incarnation was out of the 11th of september, we tried to see if on the back of a military campaign of the americans against afghanistan and against the taliban, because they were covering the people, is falling and that -- if following the military campaign if we could resume our efforts and help the afghans create a

government and rebuild a state. i think we have made considerable process -- progress in doing that. afghanistan has an elected president, they have a parliament, development has taken place over the last 10 years. all this is very good. i think we made a number of mistakes. it was impossible to have the taliban. even if we had invited them, they would not have come. the next best thing we failed to do. the next best thing should have then -- should have been to start exploring the possibility of talking to the taliban, those

of them who were willing to talk to us, immediately after we returned from afghanistan. some of view in this room have heard me say this 1000 times. the taliban did not surrender to anybody. they did not recognize that they had been beaten. they rolled 90% of the country. where have they gone? where were they? a lot of them were killed, a lot of them were arrested. a lot of them were massacred. a lot of them were taken to guantanamo. but the bulk of the taliban were still there. where did they go? we did not ask this question. we did not go out and look for them. i am absolutely certain and have

been for a very long time that if we had made that effort, perhaps we would not be where we are now. it was a -- 5000 soldiers mainly from western countries. it was very clear that we would start with this small force, and we would see if we need a bigger force and we would go back and ask them. what other reasons why -- one of the reasons why the force was small was that -- the great reputation of afghanistan. they do not like foreigners.

that did not happen. on the contrary, not only did the people and cobble -- they were led by a british general. people were coming from everywhere, can we please have some of these soldiers? we immediately asked for more soldiers. unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in getting more troops. these are two important mistakes that we have made. the third one, in two dozen 3, i .ent around with -- 2003 i

we made mistakes. because of the success, perhaps we need to revise a little bit and look back at what we have done and it just -- and just -- adjust what we are doing. that was rejected back in those days. we see that it was not perfect. this is a little bit of the background that has convinced me that a new approach is needed. what has been done is good. it has been successful in part.

just like i personally did with james dobbins, we did very good things. but we also made mistakes. the same thing that is happening today. a lot of very good things are happening, but not everything is perfect. a new approach is needed. that new approach, we think, quite a few interesting elements in this report. i will stop there. james dobbins will tell you the truth. >> you will have to speak for yourself about those early mistakes. [laughter] i agree with both of the mistakes that you mentioned.

one of the things that struck us as we did our research for this report to was the overwhelming support within afghan society for some kind of process of negotiation, a combination. -- accommodation. polling shows is strikingly strong majority that wants a peace settlement, that are prepared to make some unspecified accommodations to get a peace settlement. what is interesting is that there is strong support -- even in the segments of society that one would assume would be the most skeptical -- this support is not universally shared among the political representatives, all boat is important to

recognize that the -- although it is important to recognize that the former number alliance president is the chairman of the high peace council in charge of creating a national consensus in support of this process. in the united states, i think there has been a debate over the last year or two between the concepts of reintegration and reconciliation. reintegration is a bottom of process in which you detach elements of the insurgency on the iraq model of putting them on the west imperiled. -- western the payroll. it was successful in iraq. reckons the like -- reconciliation is considered a top-down process in which to negotiate with the leadership of the insurgencies in order to declare an end to the conflict. i think it is our view that

these are entirely compatible approaches and if you pursue them both simultaneously, you will be more successful doing both. that is if you are talking are trying to talk to the leadership. it is going to be easier to talk to the foot soldier and the captain and the field. a local settlement will be facilitated. to the extent you're having success, you are putting pressure on the upper levels to make a deal before they lose the support of their constituents. we do see these as mutually reinforcing processes. i sense that the debate in washington over this has diminished, if not ceased entirely. anyone that reads hillary clinton speech on february 18 will see an unambiguous

endorsement. none of us can firmly predict that this will succeed, but we do believe there is a realistic chance and we believe there is nothing lost in trying. there is a great deal to be gained. >> i will be very brief so we can get to the questions. this was a wonderful experience for me because the americans -- taught has been in a lot of task forces before. but never in a minority. given the fact that our visit was not dominated by the united states, we got a lot more frank discussions from the various members. everybody agrees there is no military solution. secretary clinton, secretary

gates have said that. that is why it is important that we will have to move toward a diplomatic solution. the other thing to keep in mind is that not only the afghans are tired, the americans are tired as well as our allies. the country is broke and for every soldier or other members of the armed forces we keep their, it costs us a million dollars. it is costing about $10 billion for our major allies to be there. they're also having economic problems. our military forces are overstressed and over strange. to continue this for a long period of time is only going to increase that.

in terms of dealing with our budget deficits, the defense department is projecting to begin to reduce the size of the army and marine corps within a couple of years. that is going to make it more difficult to keep up. we " secretary gates. this is not going to be a perfect solution. this idea that you were going to have this is not going to come about. finally, why now? from a military point of view, keep in mind that when president obama unveiled his so-called surge at west point, he talked about this summer as a point to begin withdrawing our troops. i think this will happen. i think it is a good time for the taliban to want to enter

into the negotiations. our feeling was based upon the conversation we had of been there, the taliban did not want to look like they had been defeated. once you begin to temper that down, i think they will be more willing to enter into these type of negotiations. i was reminded of somebody that the kennedys used to call -- if not us, though? if not now, when? [no audio] [applause] >> for those who are listening or watching, the report is available at the century foundation website. i would like to open it up for questions. if you could state your name and affiliation. there is a microphone that should be going around the room.

>> thank you. david, the huffington post. the most recent assessment is negotiations are a great idea, but first we have to get a little bit of an edge over the taliban over the battlefield. the taliban has the same approach. what is your assessment of whether those ideas are for public consumption? how much do you think the u.s. military and the taliban -- how do you get beyond that kind of assistance to negotiating? >> we addressed that question i extreme blanks. there is no question at all that it was very much in everybody's mind. when you are at the height of

your power, the slope ahead is all down hard. -- downward. it takes to negotiate, obviously. with all of the fact that we have put on the table and with all the conversation that we had, the appropriate time to begin the exploration. on the american side, there are pending changes. we are not sure that even force reductions will mean a great deal of difference in terms of force capability. however, i would like to emphasize again the central thesis of our view is that this is a military stalemate and we do not see signs of that breaking soon. along very you wait to begin a

process of seeing whether there is a political answer, the harder it becomes. >> it seems very much that you are pressing on an open door. a lot of what you propose have already begun. the current u.n. representative in afghanistan has been organizing meetings of regional ambassadors. he spoke yesterday here in washington. he talked about organizing a meeting in istanbul this summer. we have the high peace council, which already mentioned. why propose more bureaucratic structure? [laughter] >> let me take a lap at that.

-- whack at that rate 12 months ago, it was not that much of a slam dunk. it is now time to bring the threads together. a certain amount of cacophony and laudable objectives may be right, but over time, if he wants to take energy, you have to focus it and move it. in fact, numerous channels, the endless numbers of individual conversations, are all taking into account to that we are on the cusp of needing a certain effort that will move ahead in phase is that we've set out and tried not to replicate what is essentially a series of isolated

conversations and semi jamborees, and begin to put it into something that could actually lead somewhere. we feel this is a serious contribution of our report. >> i have a point on the facilitator. there are a couple of factors that are featured in a recommendations. we think this is a full-time job. it is not something that can be an added function of somebody was already pretty busy. secondly, it cannot be done principally in cobble -- kab ul. you also need to engage neighboring countries in ways that probably transcend the instructions of their local embassador and require consultations in a variety of forms. finally, it's a process is started, that process will not take place in kabul.

those are some of the factors that led us to believe that something new was required in addition the soundings that the u.s., the u.k., the un, the afghan government have been taking on this subject. >> thank you free report. let me put the question to the panel. you talked about a facilitator. it will be the initiator? how long will you get this thing under way? to is going to light the fuse? pakistan is clearly critical. just when you think relations cannot get worse, they manage to do so. what is your plan for improving u.s. relations and making sure that pakistan is part of the team, and not part of the opposition? >> we have not pointed -- we

have no authority to appoint -- there is no question at all that this will have to mean as much to the u.s. as any other party. without the u.s., it will not work. the u.s. has the peculiar possibility -- working here with china to bring islamabad further along the path. it has to come. the afghans are critical. it is that nexus, in my view. i cannot believe that given the american tradition of always wanting to solve every problem and seeing itself as the irreplaceable spark plug, that it will not start there. the proposal is not to improve pakistan-u.s. relations. by ellen view is that i cannot imagine anything -- my own view is that i cannot imagine

anything that would make a greater positive difference in pakistan-u.s. relations was a process that led to some reasonable and acceptable solutions to afghanistan, as difficult as we all see that now. nine months ago, we saw the process of being entirely improbable. we now see after conversations that it is probable. we see the negotiations and the agreements that have to be reached as entirely improbable, if not extremely difficult. over time, we had even begun to see signs that what we are preconditions to discussions on each side are now being moved into becoming their negotiating objectives in the process was underway. these are encouraging.

they are helpful. in my sense, they can help make that difference that we all would like to see in pakistan- u.s. relations. >> let me take to questions. -- two questions. >> dennis coax from the woodrow wilson center. what sort of role do you see -- what is the role of u.s. military going to be the day after you have an international accord? do you envision part of and a lot -- of an accord accepted by afghanistan? >> i will take one more. >> i represent a coalition of

veterans for rethinking afghanistan. thank you for your due process. we have been advocating for two years to get this going. to get our troops out of there. i served in both battlefields. i am generally critical of counterinsurgency as a method of war. it seems pretty limited to me. with regards to president obama and he had been lustration -- and the administration, does the current administration have the current to start this process and all it through to the end? if we do not, what will happen if there is a changeover in leadership? >> before we get too far down on this -- i could take a brief shot at those questions. thank you for calling all of my

best friend here who are experts at torture. dennis, the question of u.s. bases is clearly an issue between the united states and afghanistan and certainly in the context of negotiations. my own personal view on this is that what be administration has been saying about not seeking any base presence, but committing itself to long-term support of an afghan government in whatever way is necessary, and is probably as good an answer as anyone can find. it was not a central subject of the report because the reports only suggests ways ahead. it does not seem to prescribe points of agreement or specific ways to get there. maybe others will come along in the near future and begin to be

helpful on the part. it was hard enough to get over the initial to hans -- two humps. this is a question between afghanistan and pakistan. you know better than anyone in this room, it is fraught with difficulties. in the end, one could only hope that it does not become a central roadblocks. over a period of time, the two countries will find ways either bilaterally or using judicial process to see if they can find an answer to that question. thank you for your points. i would only emphasize that we have from the very early days of this report discussed with key officials of the administration. they will have to speak for themselves. on the record last night, they indicated that they welcome to the consultations. they welcome to the reports,

that they thought it would be useful. my own feeling is that the central purpose behind this report, with all the players with him we spoke, we wanted to give them an inspiration and a way to gear up courage to move ahead. to do so, on the basis of facts and analysis, not on the basis of hype and hope. i think we have tried, but it is up to you to decide whether this report is in the right ballpark. our consultations lead us to believe initially that for the obama administration, people with him we have spoken, it is in the ballpark. >> what the wake one comment. -- let me make one comment after you come to an agreement, you may need a u.n. peacekeeping force. we model but on other countries in which said this happened. -- we model that on other countries in which this has

happened. >> humans and -- humans and there is a widespread agreement for a political end to the conflict. i wonder if what you laid out in the report is that close to the current u.s. policy. clinton said that -- hillary clinton noted the goal of the reconciliation was to split the movement from its irreconcilable corpe. that is significantly different from what you are advocating in this report. first of all, you outlined the possible settlement -- take the constitution as a departure point. i think that addressing the

taliban as a unified movement is a little different than trying to split it. i wonder if you could address that. >> maybe i could do the one piece on the u.s. policy. i think that everybody is free to give their own exegesis on the secretary's speech. i would point out that it is the feeling of many that reintegration, which is bringing is entirely compatible with reconciliation. it is finding it wait for word for the whole future of afghanistan. -- finding a way forward for the whole future of afghanistan. the secretary was here a careful to say that those to work looking previously at preconditions for discussion

have not converted. those preconditions into negotiating objectives. there is no internal disagreement on these particular points. >> you are absolutely right. it is different. we do not represent them, they do not speak for us. i believe that the devastation is on record -- the administration is on record supporting. they have said that several times. they said it here.

the thing is, how are you going to do it? i do not think there is anybody who says there is any solution, as it is a political solution. how are you going to do it? these contacts with the taliban, these ideas that are floating around, they're useful. absolutely. at the end of the day, many of you have followed -- it was three years ago in kenya, having left the united nations, having

to mitigate the terrible consequences. the most important thing was to demand from everybody that he be the only channel. everybody has his support. he did not say, only i can contribute and and work out the solution. he said, i need a lot of support. that support has got to come to me and we've got to have one channel. this is what you need. that does not exist yet in afghanistan. that is what you need. you need that one channel for this political solutions that everybody is talking about. >> no negotiators specifies the concessions he is prepared to make at the beginning of the negotiation.

[laughter] hillary clinton has said that accepting the constitutional line down their arms and cutting ties with al qaeda is the objective of the negotiation and. it is our opening position. nobody gets their entire opening position at the beginning of the negotiation. if you agree to it, you are implicitly stating its willingness to compromise on some points. the united states government is going to have to prepare 400 futures traded one as a future where there is an agreement. one is a future where there is no agreement. things like talking about the base structure in afghanistan post 2014 clearly is appropriate in a world in which there is no agreement.

the alternative obviates the requirement for much for all that and creates a different future. all the government can talk about at the moment is the default future. that is, there is not an agreement. they have indicated a willingness to go down the other path. that is the most we can expect from them at the moment. >> will take one last question. >> -- we will take one last question. >> doug brooks. my question is how the west is going to accept this. there were a lot of real gains in terms of the electoral process, women's rights, and so on. there will have to be some sort of compromise to come up with an agreement. do you have enough assurances from western nations that they're willing to allow some of these advances to be pushed back a bit?

>> you know, what we hear from western nations, europe and canada, what we hear is that -- that is the most important thing. yes, of course, they insist on protecting the gains in human rights, women's rights. but their main concern is to get out. i am not sure how people view these gains that have been made in afghanistan. these gains are modest. they are the subject of debate amongst the afghans.

what is very, very important is that you have now large afghan constituencies that are fighting for those rights. that is what is important. that is what is not going to go away. but we started to discuss human rights, i have very serious arguments with my colleagues in geneva. i told them, what we need is support the afghans to set up their own organization. since to dozen to, -- 2002, you have a strong organization led by a woman that has offices in every single city in afghanistan. fighting for their rights. one day when, one day they liz.

they're still a lot of programs -- one day they win, one day they lose. there are still a lot of women who still in themselves to death because they're forced to be married. those problems are going to continue. that will continue whether you have peace or not. they will have a much better chance of moving forward, however slowly, in this environment than they have now. >> thank you very much for joining us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> it was three years ago next week -- it was 30 years ago next week that president ronald reagan was shot outside the washington hilton hotel. the assassination attempt is the subject of a new book. tonight, they are presenting a program on the attempted assassination. the author will be delayed with a secret service agent that pushed the president into the waiting limousine. it will be moderated by d

woodruff -- judy woodruff. president obama is turning to washington. he should be on the ground shortly. the president will continue to update the american people on u.s. military involvement in libya. an address to the nation has not been ruled out. that is from deputy national security adviser. he briefed reporters act -- aboard air force one on the return trip to the u.s. >> this week, special counsel to president nixon talks about the watergate break-in, the secret white house tapes, and its relationship with the 37th president. remembering the father of the constitution, the story asserts

that james madison should be known as the father of american politics. >> earlier today, there is evidence that the u.s. assault on libya has caused many civilian casualties. he provided an operational of state. -- update. this is 35 minutes. >> we will be ready to go. >> we are at the pentagon. we are pleased to be joined today rear admiral.

the admiral is here to give us an operational of dates -- update via phone link. he became the director of policy resources and strategy at the u.s. naval forces europe and africa in august of 2009. i will turn things over to you. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for the opportunity to talk about the coalition operations.

before i bring you up-to-date, but we take a moment to give you an update on the f-15 incident. two air force members ejected safely after the aircraft encountered -- in accordance with the united nations security resolution 1973. both of those crew members are safe. they are in u.s. care and are going through every integration process. my boss also addressed that issue yesterday. before i bring you up-to-date with the operational picture, when we take a few moments to specifically point out our mission. the mission is to conduct military operations to protect the civilian population from

attack or threat of attack in accordance with the united nations security resolution 1973. to protect civilians and civilian operate -- populations under attack, to establish a no- flight zone, and to prevent mass atrocities and to enforce an arms embargo to prevent the flow of arms and armed mercenaries from being used against civilians. the to achieve our mission, innocent civilians must be protected. forces must cease fire. they must stop advancing on benghazi and the pullback. humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of libya. clearly, gaddafi's